{"product_id":"164470","title":"Why American Diplomacy Fails ","description":"\u003ccenter\u003e\u003cdiv style=\"text-align:center\"\u003e\u003cimg src=\"https:\/\/tmgdisk01.cafe24.com\/images\/vs\/4172\/sv\/3jYFtwrEl74wjKPuhlh8W2oGqVzFfL.png?v=1764973619\" style=\"max-width:100%;max-height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\u003ccenter\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"width:95%\"\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align:center;font-size:30px;font-weight:bolder;line-height:1.6em\"\u003e Why American Diplomacy Fails \u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"border-bottom:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;border-color:;padding-bottom:20px\"\u003e\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable align=\"center\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\u003ctbody style=\"border:0px\"\u003e\n\n\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"center\" style=\"line-height:1.2em;text-align:center;font-size:18px;color:black;font-weight:bold;padding-bottom:20px;\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\n\n\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"text-align:center\"\u003e\u003cimg src=\"https:\/\/image.yes24.com\/goods\/143286881\/XL\" style=\"max-width:100%;height:auto\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\n\n\n\u003c\/tbody\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"width:95%;{split_style6}padding-top:20px;padding-bottom:20px\"\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align:left;font-size:16px;font-weight:bold;padding-bottom:20px\"\u003e Description \u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align:left;word-break:break-all;font-size:14px;line-height:1.6em;\"\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003ch5\u003e \u003cb\u003eBook Introduction\u003c\/b\u003e\n\u003c\/h5\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e \u003cb\u003eAmerican diplomacy wasn't omnipotent! What led to its failure?\u003cbr\u003e In the Trump 2.0 era, the catastrophe in international relations didn't strike suddenly.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e America, the world's leader! In the 21st century, we all live within a world order created by America. \u003cbr\u003eBut American diplomacy was also marked by failures as well as successes.\u003cbr\u003e The United States has often misjudged its opponents, fallen into a self-centered mindset and responded inappropriately, and has also tried to unilaterally promote American values, only to have them backfire.\u003cbr\u003e But often it was due to arrogance or incompetence, and sometimes failure itself was the goal.\u003cbr\u003e The nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula is one of those vivid examples.\u003cbr\u003e The United States prioritized tensions on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia, and easily ignored the efforts of those who did their best to promote peace.\u003cbr\u003e This is not a problem of error or incompetence on the part of a few bureaucrats or policymakers, nor is it due to capricious policy changes by each administration.\u003cbr\u003e ≪Why American Diplomacy Fails≫ is a record of lectures and discussions held directly by 11 leading scholars and experts in American diplomacy and international relations about the chaos in American diplomacy. \u003cbr\u003eIt examines the specifics of American diplomacy in sharply contested issues such as the Korean Peninsula issue, the Russia-Ukraine war, the Gaza Strip crisis, and the Central American conflict, and raises questions about what the United States and the world should consider and how to respond.\u003cbr\u003e\n\n\u003c\/div\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e You can preview some of the book's contents.\u003cbr\u003e \u003cspan\u003ePreview\u003c\/span\u003e\n\n\u003c\/li\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003ch5\u003e \u003cb\u003eindex\u003c\/b\u003e\n\u003c\/h5\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e Preface\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Prologue: James Rainey and Korea\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e introduction\u003cbr\u003e A turbulent world and a drifting US foreign policy: Is there an alternative?\u003cbr\u003e Moon Jae-in\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003ePart 1: How to Solve the North Korean Nuclear Issue\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Chapter 1\u003cbr\u003e U.S. Policy toward North Korea: Recommendations for the Next Administration\u003cbr\u003e Robert Gallucci\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Chapter 2\u003cbr\u003e North Korea's Journey to the New World and the Path to Preventing Nuclear Disaster on the Korean Peninsula: Is Peace Possible on the Korean Peninsula?\u003cbr\u003e Robert Carlin and Siegfried Hecker\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003ePart 2: Is American Diplomacy Failing?\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Chapter 3\u003cbr\u003e Is America's Foreign Policy Failing?: Historical Understanding and Reality\u003cbr\u003e Charles Kupchan\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Chapter 4  \u003cbr\u003eConservative Foreign Policy in the United States: Orthodox Conservatives, Neoconservatives, and MAGA\u003cbr\u003e Walter Mead\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Chapter 5\u003cbr\u003e A Defense of American Foreign Policy as Liberal Internationalism: A Liberal Perspective\u003cbr\u003e John Ikenberry\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003ePart 3: Key Issues in American Diplomacy\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Chapter 6\u003cbr\u003e The US-China Strategic Rivalry: Is There a Way Out?\u003cbr\u003e Susan Thornton\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Chapter 7\u003cbr\u003e End of the Ukraine-Gaza War?: War, Diplomacy, and the Prospects\u003cbr\u003e Carl Eikenberry\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Chapter 8\u003cbr\u003e America's New Economic Strategy and Middle-Class Diplomacy: How Economic Foreign Policy Works\u003cbr\u003e Vinod Agarwal\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Chapter 9\u003cbr\u003e From Asia-Pacific to Indo-Pacific: America's Changing Regional Strategy\u003cbr\u003e Van Jackson\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Chapter 10\u003cbr\u003e Climate Change, US Domestic Politics, and Global Governance: US Diplomacy in the Age of Climate Change\u003cbr\u003e Miranda Schroers\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Words of gratitude\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003ch5\u003e \u003cb\u003eInto the book\u003c\/b\u003e\n\u003c\/h5\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e American foreign policy must be more cautious and humble.\u003cbr\u003e Only when the United States sheds its arrogance and unilateral bias can it regain the respect of the international community. \u003cbr\u003eIn 1630, John Winthrop, then governor of Massachusetts Bay, described the future of America after independence as a \"city upon a hill\" overflowing with individual freedom and material abundance.\u003cbr\u003e This means that the United States becomes a role model for the world, and other countries voluntarily follow this exemplary American example.\u003cbr\u003e The essence of American soft power is that other countries look up to the United States without having to force it.\u003cbr\u003e However, when we become obsessed with \"American exceptionalism\" and \"American supremacy,\" forgetting the virtues of prudence and humility, respect and voluntary compliance with the United States from other countries becomes impossible.\u003cbr\u003e The high-handed attitude of asking, “Are you on our side or not?” and “Stand on the right side of history” will only serve to spread anti-American sentiment.\u003cbr\u003e --- From \"Introduction: A Fluctuating World and a Drifting American Foreign Policy\"\u003cbr\u003e \u003cbr\u003eFirst, further hard-line statements would be inappropriate going forward.\u003cbr\u003e We must speak only what is necessary and speak clearly about the vitality of our alliance and the strength of its deterrent.\u003cbr\u003e And now we must find ways to pursue cooperation with North Korea again.\u003cbr\u003e Second, North Korea's nuclear weapons program should not be made a subject of negotiation again.\u003cbr\u003e There is no need to debate the permanence of North Korea's nuclear weapons program.\u003cbr\u003e I believe the only realistic way to deal with North Korea's nuclear weapons is to acknowledge that they are part of the current political and security landscape.\u003cbr\u003e The good news is that there are no insurmountable obstacles to improving relations between North Korea and the United States, as long as they don't pose a threat to Beijing.\u003cbr\u003e It may not be as easy as it sounds, but it is not impossible.\u003cbr\u003e --- From \"Chapter 1: U.S. Policy toward North Korea\"\u003cbr\u003e \u003cbr\u003eIf I had a bet that I would get a nickel every time the word \"suppression\" was used in an official government statement, I would be incredibly rich.\u003cbr\u003e Why do we keep using that word? Does it work? Maybe.\u003cbr\u003e Maybe it will have some effect.\u003cbr\u003e But it was clearly ineffective in stopping North Korea's nuclear weapons program.\u003cbr\u003e We talk about deterrence, but the number of nuclear weapons continues to grow.\u003cbr\u003e What should we do? What's happening? We must prepare for when North Korea reopens.\u003cbr\u003e They will open the door.\u003cbr\u003e North Korea is tactically very adept at making us knock, push, and bang on the door.\u003cbr\u003e They keep closing the door.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e But one day they suddenly open the door.\u003cbr\u003e We stumble in, losing our balance. \u003cbr\u003eIt will be a different space than we knew before.\u003cbr\u003e You won't be sitting at the table with the same people and the same goals in mind as before.\u003cbr\u003e If we're not prepared, if we don't understand the situation, if we don't understand that they expect and need new things in return for what we need, the negotiation will quickly fail.\u003cbr\u003e If negotiations fail, people in Seoul and Washington will say, \"See? I told you so.\u003cbr\u003e We can't do business with North Korea.\u003cbr\u003e You will say, “It’s impossible.”\u003cbr\u003e --- From \"Chapter 2: North Korea's Path to a New World and the Path to Preventing Nuclear Disaster on the Korean Peninsula\"\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Donald Trump is a huge backlash in many ways. \u003cbr\u003eIt is a backlash against the hollowing out of the American middle class due to liberal over-intervention in the post-Cold War era and the continued wars in the Middle East that have been costly but have not yielded much good results.\u003cbr\u003e I think the American people are now tired of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere.\u003cbr\u003e Donald Trump was, in many ways, a response to the primal cry of the American voter: \"too much world, not enough America.\"\u003cbr\u003e What has it done for us? Why are we building schools in Kandahar when we should be building schools in Kansas? These are the kinds of complaints that keep piling up.\u003cbr\u003e --- From “Chapter 3: Is America’s Foreign Policy Failing?”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Sometimes we make ridiculously idealistic statements. \u003cbr\u003eSometimes it seems like we're trying to conquer the world, and sometimes it seems like we're trying to distance ourselves from it.\u003cbr\u003e The CIA was dispatched to rescue the American multinational corporation United Fruit, which had advanced into Guatemala, and relations with countries like Burma (Myanmar) deteriorated significantly for unclear reasons, including human rights issues.\u003cbr\u003e In short, it's a mess.\u003cbr\u003e A series of events occurred one after another.\u003cbr\u003e So people have been critical of the foreign policy of the United States since the beginning of American history.\u003cbr\u003e On the other hand, looking back at the history of the past 200 years, one clear trend in international politics is that the United States has gradually increased its power and influence in the international system.\u003cbr\u003e In 1790, the United States was a very weak and peripheral country.\u003cbr\u003e But after 1945, it became the world's most dominant power.\u003cbr\u003e This raises a question: \u003cbr\u003eHow could a country with such a poor foreign policy, such a hopeless mess of politicians, such a mixture of stupidity and incompetence, become the superpower it is today?\u003cbr\u003e --- From \"Chapter 4: America's Conservative Foreign Policy\"\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e I think there have already been three failures before Trump.\u003cbr\u003e First, the Iraq War has significantly damaged America's credibility.\u003cbr\u003e As a liberal international nation, that is.\u003cbr\u003e I don't think the Iraq war was a liberal war.\u003cbr\u003e I think it's closer to a hegemonic realist war.\u003cbr\u003e The second crisis and failure was the 2008 financial crisis, which pushed liberalism in a neoliberal direction.\u003cbr\u003e Third, the predictions made by liberal internationalists and others associated with them that China would move toward a liberal society failed. \u003cbr\u003eWhat many liberals, including myself, consider a failure is the assumption that China would gradually open up once it joined the WTO and became integrated into the liberal international order.\u003cbr\u003e Although it was not expected that China would become a democracy, there was an expectation that it would become a more pluralistic society.\u003cbr\u003e Civil society is crucial to the operation of the liberal world order, and we had hoped that citizens within China would have a greater voice in cooperating with the wishes of liberal internationalists.\u003cbr\u003e --- From \"Chapter 5: A Defense of the American Foreign Policy of Liberal Internationalism\"\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e My concern is that the United States, obsessed with competing with China, may pursue distorted policies that weaken America's inherent strengths.\u003cbr\u003e We must maintain healthy alliances with each other. \u003cbr\u003eTo do that, the United States must demonstrate respect for the interests of its allies.\u003cbr\u003e We must not allow competition with China to trample on their interests.\u003cbr\u003e The United States must maintain its global leadership position.\u003cbr\u003e So, you have to have good ideas that benefit everyone.\u003cbr\u003e Not to incite competition with China.\u003cbr\u003e To appeal to people around the world, you have to do the right thing, not just show that you're competing with someone else.\u003cbr\u003e I believe that no matter how much advantage the United States gains in its competition with China, it will not be able to sustain that advantage unless it pursues a positive agenda.\u003cbr\u003e --- From \"Chapter 6: US-China Strategic Rivalry\"\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In recent years, the divisions in American domestic politics have increasingly influenced foreign policy.\u003cbr\u003e There is an old saying in American politics. \u003cbr\u003eNo matter how serious the conflict surrounding American domestic politics or foreign policy, it ends when it reaches the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, respectively.\u003cbr\u003e The moment we leave the shores of the United States, we will conduct our foreign policy with a unified stance.\u003cbr\u003e But now that doesn't make sense.\u003cbr\u003e America's foreign policy toward the world is increasingly influenced by divided domestic politics.\u003cbr\u003e Let's look at one indicator of this.\u003cbr\u003e A recent poll in the United States shows that about 63% of Americans over 55, roughly my age, support Israel.\u003cbr\u003e But when you look at people between the ages of 18 and 34, the situation is the opposite.\u003cbr\u003e 64% would say they support Palestine.\u003cbr\u003e Looking at racial differences, 61% of white Americans say they support Israel. \u003cbr\u003ePeople of color are 30% more likely to say they support Israel.\u003cbr\u003e --- From \"Chapter 7: The End of the War between Ukraine and Gaza?\"\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Companies say, “We are critical to national security.\u003cbr\u003e When people say, “We need to protect our industry,” you have to question whether that is true.\u003cbr\u003e My favorite example goes back about 65 years.\u003cbr\u003e At the time, the American wool blanket industry claimed that it would need between 150 million and 200 million wool blankets to ensure survival in the event of a nuclear war.\u003cbr\u003e Basically, they argued that the wool blanket industry needed to be protected.\u003cbr\u003e They argued that wool blankets should be produced in the United States while restricting imports from Japan and other countries.\u003cbr\u003e This is supposed to protect us from radiation. \u003cbr\u003eI'm not a physicist, but I know that wool blankets won't save us from radiation.\u003cbr\u003e It might cover your head when a nuclear explosion occurs.\u003cbr\u003e Unfortunately, it will not survive.\u003cbr\u003e This is kind of nonsense.\u003cbr\u003e When you see companies lobbying to protect themselves.\u003cbr\u003e Therefore, we must be very careful when asserting what is and is not important to national security.\u003cbr\u003e --- From \"Chapter 8 America's New Economic Strategy and Middle-Class Diplomacy\"\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The most powerful source of peace in Asia is something no one wants to talk about anymore: the détente between China and the United States.\u003cbr\u003e It was no coincidence that peace in Asia began in 1979.\u003cbr\u003e That year also marked the normalization of diplomatic relations between China and the United States. \u003cbr\u003eBefore détente, China had pursued a revolutionary foreign policy and enjoyed military adventures in many places.\u003cbr\u003e China has been extremely hostile to the United States and its interests in Asia.\u003cbr\u003e But Deng Xiaoping needed a cooperative relationship with the United States to reform the People's Liberation Army and prioritize national development over nationalist retaliatory policies.\u003cbr\u003e This is similar to the choice made by several Asian countries around the same time.\u003cbr\u003e In other words, development was prioritized over nationalism.\u003cbr\u003e So détente has forced not only China but also the United States to exercise restraint.\u003cbr\u003e Détente also promoted economic interdependence in East Asia.\u003cbr\u003e Major powers have participated in regional organizations and directly contributed to stabilizing the global economy since the 2008 financial crisis. \u003cbr\u003eAll this happened in a world where Asia was called the Asia-Pacific, not the Indo-Pacific.\u003cbr\u003e What I want to emphasize is that functional cooperation between the great powers has played a greater role in maintaining peace in Asia than any other factor.\u003cbr\u003e This is where the real problem with American foreign policy lies.\u003cbr\u003e The greatest danger to peace in Asia comes from replacing détente with long-term competition.\u003cbr\u003e The elimination of détente and the introduction of long-term competition are the context in which we consider the Indo-Pacific and its implications.\u003cbr\u003e From a regional stability perspective, this is the question we must focus on.\u003cbr\u003e --- From Chapter 9, From Asia-Pacific Strategy to Indo-Pacific Strategy\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In 1997, the U.S. Senate passed the resolution by a vote of 95 to 0. \u003cbr\u003eThe United States argued that China must also take meaningful action and should not join agreements like the Kyoto Protocol that do not guarantee such participation.\u003cbr\u003e As the graph on the side shows, China's emissions were considerably lower than those of the United States or Europe in 1990, but around the time the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, China's emissions began to increase rapidly.\u003cbr\u003e So, American politics began to spread the blame game, with people blaming China, asking, \"What's China doing? Is China doing enough?\" and using that as an excuse to deflect responsibility.\u003cbr\u003e Concerns also played a role: China would become the world's manufacturing hub without any restrictions on climate action.\u003cbr\u003e Then-Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States should focus on energy security.\u003cbr\u003e This meant more fossil fuels.\u003cbr\u003e This has become the dominant discourse in conservative American climate politics. \u003cbr\u003eThis is a discourse that has been particularly strong in the Republican Party.\u003cbr\u003e\n\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e --- From \"Chapter 10: Climate Change, U.S. Domestic Politics, and Global Governance\"\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003ch5\u003e \u003cb\u003ePublisher's Review\u003c\/b\u003e\n\u003c\/h5\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e \u003cb\u003eAmerican diplomacy wasn't omnipotent.\u003cbr\u003e Serious questions that explore the details and origins of America's foreign policy failures.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e American diplomacy has been marked by failures as well as successes.\u003cbr\u003e Of course, America's hegemonic position remains intact, but given its history of past failures, the current global situation does not seem so easy for American diplomacy to handle.\u003cbr\u003e Above all, the biggest challenge for American diplomacy is the rise of China and the resulting conflict between China and the United States.\u003cbr\u003e However, there are no clear signs of a new Cold War yet, and military confrontation between them is not as visible as it was during the Cold War.\u003cbr\u003e The world today stands on the borderline between a 'cold peace' and a new Cold War. \u003cbr\u003eCan the United States prevent the current \"cold peace\" from solidifying into a new Cold War?\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Beyond the US-China confrontation, signs of crisis are appearing in many places.\u003cbr\u003e The war in Ukraine, the Gaza Strip crisis, the escalating conflicts on the Korean Peninsula, in the Taiwan Strait, and in the South China Sea, and global challenges such as nuclear proliferation, climate change, and the decline of the liberal economic order cast a dark shadow over the future of the world order.\u003cbr\u003e The United States is undoubtedly the key player in preventing a regression into a new Cold War, maintaining global peace and security, and reestablishing a world order in turmoil. However, Pax Americana is now a relic of the past.\u003cbr\u003e It is no longer easy to characterize the United States as a liberator, hegemonic stabilizer, security patron, or benevolent benefactor after World War II.\u003cbr\u003e However, the inertia still remains and the international community's expectations for it are also high. \u003cbr\u003eCan the United States, once again a respected leader in the international community, rectify the chaotic and uncertain 21st-century world order? \"Why American Diplomacy Fails\" is a valuable record in which eleven world-renowned scholars examine the chaotic nature of American diplomacy and its origins, examine current issues, and seek alternatives in the face of crisis.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003eHow to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue\u003cbr\u003e The United States missed a crucial opportunity in the Korean Peninsula crisis.\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In Chapter 1, Professor Robert Gallucci, a U.S. administration official who has witnessed the ups and downs of North Korea-U.S. relations over the past 30 years, provides a clear analysis of the North Korean nuclear issue.\u003cbr\u003e At this stage, a nuclear freeze or dismantlement will not be easy, and coercion such as the ROK-US alliance and deterrence and sanctions will be necessary.\u003cbr\u003e However, the North Korean nuclear issue cannot be resolved through coercion alone.\u003cbr\u003e Dialogue and diplomatic negotiations are essential. \u003cbr\u003eProfessor Gallucci does not expect the advent of a second Trump administration to bring about a new, groundbreaking breakthrough in North Korea-US relations.\u003cbr\u003e Rather, it is pessimistic that we could end up on the brink of nuclear war.\u003cbr\u003e To prevent this catastrophe, I advise the incoming Trump administration to:\u003cbr\u003e “Avoid hostile rhetoric toward North Korea.\u003cbr\u003e We must engage and engage with North Korea, but we must not neglect deterrence.\u003cbr\u003e Deterrence is the most important leverage in negotiations.\u003cbr\u003e To achieve this, we need to strengthen the ROK-US alliance, and above all, we must prioritize the North Korean nuclear issue as a policy priority.”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In Chapter 2, Robert Carlin and Siegfried Hecker examine various ways to avoid a nuclear disaster on the Korean Peninsula.\u003cbr\u003e First, researcher Karlin, who has analyzed North Korean issues for over 40 years at the CIA and State Department, predicts that the situation on the Korean Peninsula is gradually worsening and that a turnaround seems difficult. \u003cbr\u003eSince the 1990s, North Korea has sought to find solutions for regime security and economic development through normalizing relations with the United States, including Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, and Kim Jong-un.\u003cbr\u003e However, after the failure of the Hanoi summit between North Korea and the United States in February 2019, hopes for improved relations with the United States were dashed and new alternatives began to be sought.\u003cbr\u003e North Korea is seeking a way to survive by improving relations with both Russia and China.\u003cbr\u003e The adoption of an offensive nuclear doctrine and the establishment of a hostile relationship with the South after December 2023 can be understood in the same context.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Dr. Hacker also criticizes that while North Korea's desire to possess nuclear weapons is problematic, the United States' policy failures have also contributed to worsening the North Korean nuclear issue.\u003cbr\u003e There were six turning points in the nuclear negotiations with North Korea, and the United States made mistakes each time. \u003cbr\u003eAmong these, the United States' blunders during the second nuclear crisis in 2002 and President Trump's failure to negotiate at the Hanoi summit in February 2019 brought about a fatal setback in resolving the North Korean nuclear issue through dialogue and diplomacy.\u003cbr\u003e Dr. Hacker advises, \"Don't make the North Korean nuclear issue worse,\" and \"Always be prepared for changing circumstances, whether they worsen or improve.\"\u003cbr\u003e It also emphasizes the need to find a gradual and practical solution that halts North Korea's nuclear weapons activities, reduces its nuclear facilities, materials, and weapons through diplomatic negotiations, and promotes nuclear dismantlement over time.\u003cbr\u003e Regarding North Korea negotiations, Carlin and Hacker urged the second Trump administration to “learn from the past.”\u003cbr\u003e Don't make the situation worse.\u003cbr\u003e “Always be prepared,” he suggests.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003eVoices that are no longer one\u003cbr\u003e American foreign policy shaped by division and conflict in domestic politics\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e \u003cbr\u003ePart 2, under the theme of \"Is American Diplomacy Failing?\", covers various theoretical positions on American foreign policy, their origins, and how each position developed into policy.\u003cbr\u003e First, in Chapter 3, Professor Charles Kupchan recalls that American foreign policy was not smooth.\u003cbr\u003e From the early days of independence to the end of the 19th century, there was isolationism; until just before World War II, there was a clash between the lines of realism and idealism; and after 1945, when the United States established its hegemonic position, there were attempts to satisfy both idealism and realism, but they were not very successful.\u003cbr\u003e In particular, he points out that U.S. foreign policy has lost consistency due to domestic political changes and partisan conflict.\u003cbr\u003e He reminds us that American foreign policy can be successful when it builds a national consensus centered on pragmatic realism.\u003cbr\u003e However, with the emergence of Trump 2.0, that possibility has become even more unlikely.\u003cbr\u003e \u003cbr\u003eIn Chapter 4, Professor Walter Mead assumes that to understand American conservative foreign policy, it is necessary to first understand the four ideological underpinnings of American foreign policy.\u003cbr\u003e First, Hamiltonian realism, which advocates for a wealthy nation and a strong military; second, Wilsonian idealism, which argues that American ideals should be spread throughout the world; third, Jeffersonianism, which argues that war should be avoided because it entails great costs and sacrifices and that emphasis should be placed on promoting the welfare of citizens; and lastly, populist Jacksonianism, which opposes the United States' role as a crusader for democracy and human rights and is indifferent to the liberal trade order. Of these, Hamiltonianism and Jacksonianism are diagnosed as the core of conservatism. \u003cbr\u003eProfessor Mead categorizes Trump as a prime example of Jacksonianism, and predicts that it will be difficult to predict the foreign policy of the American conservative camp as the conservative centrists who could mediate the tensions and conflicts between Hamiltonianism and Jacksonianism disappear.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In Chapter 5, Professor John Ikenberry defines the mainstream of American liberal foreign policy as liberal internationalism and reexamines the merits and demerits of this position.\u003cbr\u003e First, as representative examples of the success of liberal internationalism, they include economic growth and expansion of international trade through the establishment of a liberal economic order after World War II, the reintegration of Germany and Japan into the international community, the creation of a reciprocal international order through the establishment of multilateral institutions such as the UN, IMF, World Bank, and WTO, the incubation of social democratic ideals, and the successful transition to capitalism and democracy in some developing countries (South Korea is a representative example). \u003cbr\u003eMeanwhile, Professor Eikenberry cites the invasion of Iraq, the 2008 financial crisis brought on by neoliberal policies, and misjudgments about China's transition to liberalism as examples of failure behind this success.\u003cbr\u003e He makes a pessimistic prediction that with the emergence of Trump 2.0, \"America First\" and unilateralism will become the keynote of American foreign policy.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e \u003cb\u003eA turbulent world and America's response\u003cbr\u003e US-China relations, Ukraine\/Gaza crisis, new economic strategy, Indo-Pacific strategy, climate change crisis\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Part 3 focuses on the major foreign policy issues currently facing the United States.\u003cbr\u003e In Chapter 6, researcher Susan Thornton traces the current deterioration of US-China relations to the \"national exceptionalism\" prevalent in both the US and China.\u003cbr\u003e The United States and China are two great powers with significant differences, and it is true that they cannot avoid competition in many areas. \u003cbr\u003eChina provided a pretext for this, but the United States also bears a significant responsibility for exaggerating and distorting the Chinese threat and for making China a domestic political issue from a Cold War anti-communist perspective, thus complicating US-China relations.\u003cbr\u003e Thornton recommends moving away from \"American supremacy\" and working with China to transform the confrontational rivalry between the US and China into a constructive competition.\u003cbr\u003e Thornton predicts that while Trump's summit diplomacy and transactional approach could have some positive effects, his unilateral and high-handed diplomatic approach will likely be detrimental to improving US-China relations.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In Chapter 7, which covers the Gaza Strip and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, former Ambassador Karl Eikenberry expresses concern about the increasing civilian casualties and deepening humanitarian tragedy as the two wars prolong, and he worries that despite international mediation efforts, the problem remains difficult to resolve. \u003cbr\u003eFormer Ambassador Eikenberry notes that American society is deeply divided over whether to support Ukraine and Israel, and that these two wars raise moral questions about \"just war,\" including the principles of proportionality, moral relativism, mass killings of civilians, and the appropriateness of the weapons used.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In Chapter 8, Professor Vinod Agarwal approaches the recent changes in US foreign economic policy from a new theoretical perspective called the 'New Economic Strategy'.\u003cbr\u003e The New Economic Strategy is a policy that mobilizes various economic policies for purposes such as competitiveness, national security, and protecting the interests of the middle class. It is a regression from the traditional free trade system that the United States has advocated, and it is an unequal policy that benefits the wealthy, such as high-tech companies, more than the middle class. \u003cbr\u003eUnfortunately, Trump 2.0 will see policies like high tariffs, incentivizing American companies to invest abroad again, industrial policies, technological decoupling, energy independence, and anti-multilateral economic order policies that run counter to the interests of the American middle class and the world.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In Chapter 9, Professor Van Jackson delves into America's Indo-Pacific strategy.\u003cbr\u003e The Obama administration's rebalancing policy toward Asia was rebranded as the Indo-Pacific Strategy by the Trump administration and carried over to the Biden administration.\u003cbr\u003e Professor Jackson argues that the relatively long period of peace that has existed in East Asia since 1979 lies in the US Asia-Pacific strategy, which is centered on alliances, deterrence, economic interdependence, and US-China détente.\u003cbr\u003e Professor Jackson's analysis is that peace in East Asia is in jeopardy as the country shifts to the Indo-Pacific strategy, a hostile policy aimed at containing and blockading China. \u003cbr\u003eHe also criticizes countries in the region that blindly accept America's Indo-Pacific strategy.\u003cbr\u003e Professor Jackson suggests that the current crisis should be overcome through open regionalism and US-China détente, while respecting the existing norm of the balance of power.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In Chapter 10, Professor Miranda Schröers of the Technical University of Munich discusses the impact of domestic political conflict in the United States on climate change policy.\u003cbr\u003e Trump, along with the Republican Party and conservatives, are passive about climate change and environmental regulations, and focus on economic growth utilizing cheap energy resources.\u003cbr\u003e Meanwhile, the Democratic Party and the progressive camp have been actively responding to climate change.\u003cbr\u003e The inauguration of the second Trump administration will be a major blow to climate change policy.\u003cbr\u003e It is difficult to rule out the possibility of re-withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and cuts in personnel and budget in the environmental sector. \u003cbr\u003e\n\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"width:95%;padding-top:20px;padding-bottom:20px\"\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align:left;font-size:16px;font-weight:bold;padding-bottom:20px\"\u003e GOODS SPECIFICS \u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align:left;font-size:14px;line-height:1.6em;\"\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"width:100%;margin-bottom:5px;line-height:1.6em;font-size:14px\"\u003e - \u003cstrong\u003eDate of issue:\u003c\/strong\u003e March 14, 2025\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n \u003cdiv style=\"width:100%;margin-bottom:5px;line-height:1.6em;font-size:14px\"\u003e- \u003cstrong\u003ePage count, weight, size:\u003c\/strong\u003e 448 pages | 626g | 143*221*30mm\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"width:100%;margin-bottom:5px;line-height:1.6em;font-size:14px\"\u003e - \u003cstrong\u003eISBN13:\u003c\/strong\u003e 9791157064199\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"width:100%;margin-bottom:5px;line-height:1.6em;font-size:14px\"\u003e - \u003cstrong\u003eISBN10:\u003c\/strong\u003e 1157064191 \u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\n\n\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\n\u003c\/center\u003e","brand":"LIBRAIRIE COREENNE","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43891331465258,"sku":"164470","price":37.0,"currency_code":"EUR","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0683\/2750\/5962\/files\/2408d91331ab8bf63ee7d50846f64457.jpg?v=1765323037","url":"https:\/\/librairie.coreenne.fr\/en\/products\/164470","provider":"LIBRAIRIE COREENNE","version":"1.0","type":"link"}